PE 

1617 

W4 

G68 

1856 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


SB    ^0    D^3 


\ 


\ 


RECOMMENDATIONS 


OF 


Worcester's  Dictionaries; 


TO  "WHICH  IS  PREFIXED 


A     REVIEW     OF 
WEBSTER'S  SYSTEM  OF  ORTHOGRAPHY, 


FROM     THE 


UNITED   STATES   DEMOCRATIC   REVIEW, 

FOR   MARCH,    1856. 


BOSTON: 
HICKLING,  SWAN  AND  BROWN 
1856. 


I 


The  JVew    York  Evening  Post,  in  speaking  of  this  Review, 


"  We  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  elsewhere  such  full  justice 
done  to  Noah  Webster's  System  of  Orthography,  under  which 
the  English  language  has  been  corrupting  for  the  last  quarter  of 
a  century,  as  in  an  article  which  we  find  in  the  last  number  of 
the  Democratic  Review.  We  have  copied  it  at  length  in  our 
columns,  and  would  gladly  contribute  toward  the  expense  of 
having  it  read  twice  a  year  in  every  school  house  in  the  United 
States,  until  every  trace  of  Websterian  spelling  disappears  from 
the  land.  It  is  a  melancholy  evidence  of  the  amount  of  mischief 
one  man  of  learning  can  do  to  society,  that  Webster's  System 
of  Orthography  is  adopted  and  propagated  by  the  largest  pub- 
lishing house  ;  through  the  columns  of  the  most  widely  circu- 
lated monthly  magazine,  and  through  one  of  the  ablest  and 
most  widely  circulated  newspapers  in  the  United  States. 

"  The  article  is  attributed  to  the  pen  of  Edward  S.  Gould,  of 
this  city." 


Jin  American  Dictionary  of  the  English  Language.     By 
Noah  Webster.     1828-1853. 

Some  five  and  twenty  years  have  elapsed  since  this  dictionary  was 
first  issued ;  and,  to  its  compiler  and  publishers,  they  have  been  years  of 
success.  The  time  for  producing  the  work  was  fortunate.  Our  lan- 
guage had  grown  rapidly  for  a  considerable  period ;  its  vocabulary  was 
largely  increased  by  the  contributions  of  science,  by  numerous  adoptions 
from  foreign  tongues,  and  by  an  accumulation  of  derivatives  from  our  own 
established  words ;  so  that  a  well-digested  record  of  the  progress  of  the 
language  was  really  needed.  Besides,  the  parties  in  interest,  following 
the  suggestion  of  the  title  page,  had  industriously  cultivated  an  Esprit- 
Americain  in  behalf  of  the  book,  which  materially  aided  its  favorable 
reception. 

If  Webster  had  confined  himself  to  recording  such  additions  of  words  as 
usage  had  sanctioned,  to  a  careful  sifting  of  etymologies,  and  to  his  own 
valuable  definitions,  his  work  would  have  been  as  great  an  acquisition 
to  literature  as  to  his  individual  profit.  But,  unfortunately,  like  many 
other  men,  priding  himself  most  on  what  he  was  least  fitted  for,  and  as- 
suming a  character  for  which  few  men  are  fitted, —  that  of  a  reformer, — 
he  added  to  his  legitimate  labor  the  gratuitous  task  of  improving  the 
orthography  of  the  language. 

True,  language,  like  all  things  human,  is  mutable.  So  long  as  it  con- 
tinues to  be  spoken,  it  will  continue  to  change.  From  the  days  of  John- 
son to  the  days  of  "Webster,  thousands  of  words  had  been  added  to  the 
common  stock,  and  many  variations  had  taken  place  in  the  meanings  of 
words.     Spelling,  also,  had  undergone  some  modifications.     For  example, 


M180436 


the  k  of  musick,  phi/sick,  etc.,  and  the  u  of  favour,  honour,  etc.,  had  been 
gradually  dropped  by  good  writers,  though  probably  without  good  reason ; 
and  thus  orthography,  too,  was  in  a  state  of  progress.  This  was  an  un- 
desirable state ;  for  it  left  the  student  without  any  absolute  standard. 
And  if  the  student  chose  to  refine  upon  the  matter,  he  would  soon  see 
that  not  only  was  there  no  absolute  standard,  but  that  the  very  principles 
of  our  orthography  —  its  rules  and  its  analogies  —  were  exceedingly 
defective. 

This  is  all  true ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  discovering  defects  is  one  thing, 
curing  them  another ;  and  it  is  the  fate  of  reformers,  generally,  to  pro- 
pose remedies  that  are  worse  than  the  disease.  They  can  see  that  such 
and  such  wheels  of  the  machine  have  an  eccentric  motion ;  but  they  can- 
not see  that  cutting  away  what  they  deem  superfluous  flanges  may  disturb 
other  wheels  that  are  regulated  by  that  very  eccentricity.  A  change 
which  the  reformer  thinks  will  promote  simplicity,  may  happen  to  pro- 
duce confusion ;  and,  unless  he  fully  understands  the  machinery,  he  is 
pretty  certain  to  do  mischief  by  meddling  with  it. 

Tins  would  seem  to  be  Webster's  predicament.  He  aspired  to  a  New- 
tonian law  that  would  reconcile  all  orthographical  inconsistencies;  he 
produced  certain  arbitrary  rules  of  his  own  creation  that  reconcile  nothing, 
that  are  whimsically  limited  in  their  scope,  and  are  ridiculous  from  their 
reciprocal  contradictions. 

Webster  remarks  that  "  the  chief  value  of  a  dictionary  consists  in  its 
definitions."  Some  one  else  remarks,  that  "  opinions  differ."  Yet  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  Webster's  remark,  as  applied  to  his  own  dictionary, 
is  not  far  from  the  truth.  The  vocabulary  of  his  book  has,  certainly,  the 
merit  of  amplitude.  He  says  it  "  contains  sixteen  thousand  words  not  to 
be  found  in  any  similar  preceding  work ; "  but  when  one  opens  the  book 
in  the  middle,  and  finds,  consecutively, 

irremovability,  irremovable, 

irremovably,  irremoval, 

irremunerable,  irrenowned, 

irreparability,  irreparable, 

irreparableness,  irreparably, 

irrepealability,  irrepealable, 

irrepealableness,  irrepealably, 

irrepentance, 
he  may,  perhaps,  doubt  whether  "  the  value  of  the  dictionary  "  increases 
in  the  direct  ratio  of  its  voluminousness.     Webster's  etymologies,  too,  are 


copious ;  probably  more  so  than  any  preceding  lexicographer's,  in  the  pro- 
portion of  three  to  one ;  but  as  their  genuineness  is  not  always  beyond 
question,  their  quantity  is  hardly  a  fair  measure  of  their  "  value."  The 
orthography  of  the  dictionary  requires  a  more  careful  consideration. 

The  principles  —  or  rather  the  dogmas  —  of  Webster's  proposed 
reform,  are  embodied  in  the  following  enumerated  paragraphs : 

1.  Considering  that  the  tendency  of  ou*  language  to  greater  simplicity 
and  broader  analogies  ought  to  be  watched  and  cherished  with  the  utmost 
care,  he  felt  that  whenever  a  movement  toward  wider  analogies  and  more 
general  rules  had  advanced  so  far  as  to  leave  but  few  exceptions  to  im- 
pede its  progress,  those  exceptions  ought  to  be  set  aside  at  once,  and  the 
analogy  rendered  complete. 

2.  We  had  numerous  words  derived  from  the  French,  originally  ending 
in  re,  as,  cidre,  chambre,  etc.  And,  as  these  had  gradually  conformed  to 
English  spelling,  until  the  number  ending  in  re  was  reduced  to  fifteen  or 
twenty,  with  their  derivatives,  it  was  necessary  to  complete  the  analogy 
at  once  by  transposing  the  terminations  of  the  remainder.  Acre,  massacre, 
and  lucre,  however,  are  necessary  exceptions,  since  transposing  their 
terminations  would  endanger  their  pronunciation. 

3.  We  had  many  hundreds  of  primitives  ending  in  a  single  consonant, 
whose  derivatives  were  formed  by  the  addition  of  ing,  ed,  er,  etc.,  and  in 
their  derivatives,  this  single  consonant  was  doubled  when  the  accent  fell 
on  it,  as,  forget,  forgetting  ;  but  it  was  not  doubled  when  the  accent  fell 
on  a  preceding  syllable,  as  garden,  gardener.  There  were  also  about  fifty 
words  ending  in  /,  in  winch  the  analogy  was  violated,  as  travel,  traveller. 
It  was  necessary,  therefore,  at  once  to  strike^  out  the  superfluous  I  from 
these  fifty  words.  But  the  11  was  retained  in  chancellor,  metallurgy,  crys- 
talline, with  their  cognates,  because  they  were  derived  directly  from  the 
Latin  and  Greek,  cancellarius,  metallum,  and  xgtio-TaMo;. 

4.  Expense,  recompense,  license,  which  formerly  had  a  c  in  their  last 
syllable,  had  since  taken  an  s,  because  s  is  used  in  their  derivatives,  as, 
expensive,  etc.  As,  in  this  instance,  it  was  necessary  to  change  only  three 
words  to  complete  the  analogy,  namely,  defence,  offence,  and  pretence, 
their  c  was  at  once  replaced  with  an  s,  and  they  were  written  defense, 
offense,  and  pretense.  It  had  been  asked,  why  not  spell  fence  in  the  same 
manner  ?  And  nothing  is  easier  than  the  answer ;  the  derivatives  require 
the  c  ;  as,  fencing,  etc.,  and  therefore  the  c  offence  is  retained. 

5.  Foretel,  instil,  distil,  fulfil  should  be  written  foretell,  instill,  etc., 
because  their  derivatives,  foretelling,  instilling,  etc.,  are  so  written. 


6.  Dulness,  fulness,  skilful,  wilful,  must  be  written  dullness,  fullness, 
etc.,  because  their  primitives  are  so  written ;  as,  dull,  full,  skill,  will. 
Walker  says  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  write  dullness,  fullness, 
skillful,  and  willful,  as  well  as  stiffness,  gruffness,  and  crossness. 

7.  Such  compounds  as  befall,  miscall,  install,  forestall,  inthrall,  enroll, 
and  their  derivatives,  befalling,  miscalling,  installing,  forestalling,  inthrall- 
ment,  and  enrollment,  are  spelled  with  the  11,  to  prevent  a  false  pronun- 
ciation. 

8.  Mould  and  moult  should  be  spelled  mold  and  molt,  because  the  u 
has  been  dropped,  or  never  was  used,  in  gold,  bold,  fold,  colt. 

9.  Wo  should  be  spelled  woe,  because  doe,  foe,  hoe,  toe,  and  all  similar 
nouns  of  one  syllable  are  so  spelled.  The  parts  of  speech  other  than 
nouns,  as,  go,  so,  no,  retain  the  termination  in  o  ;  as  also  do  nouns  of  more 
than  one  syllable,  as,  motto,  potato,  tomato. 

10.  Practise,  the  verb,  should  be  spelled  practice,  because  the  noun  is 
so  spelled.  Drought  should  be  spelled  drouth,  because  it  is  extensively 
so  pronounced.  Height  should  be  spelled  hight,  because  it  was  so  spelled 
by  Milton.  Ton  should  be  spelled  tun,  and  molasses  melasses,  because 
that  spelling  is  more  consistent  with  the  etymologies.  Contemporary 
should  be  spelled  cotemporary,  because  it  is  more  easily  pronounced. 
Plough  should  be  spelled  plow,  because  that  spelling  more  naturally  rep- 
resents the  sound.  Axe  should  be  spelled  ax,  because  axe  is  an  improper 
spelling. 

11.  Verbs  from  the  Greek  »£w,  and  others  formed  in  analogy  with 
them,  have  the  termination  in  ize,  as,  baptize,  legalize,  etc.  Catechise  and 
exorcise  are  exceptions.  Verbs,  and  some  nouns,  derived  directly  from 
the  French,  and  a  few  from  other  sources,  have  the  termination  in  ise,  as, 
advertise,  advise,  affranchise,  chastise,  circumcise,  comprise,  compromise, 
criticise,  demise,  despise,  devise,  disfranchise,  disguise,  emprise,  enfran- 
chise, enterprise,  exercise,  merchandise,  misprise,  premise,  reprise,  revise, 
supervise,  surmise,  surprise. 

These  eleven  paragraphs,  dogmas,  rules,  or  whatever  they  may  be 
termed,  form,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  "  instances  "  entirely  too  trivial 
to  be  discussed,  the  sum  total  of  Webster's  orthographical  creed,  pre- 
sented substantially  in  his  own  words. 

1.  The  assumptions  of  number  1  are  characteristic  and  suggestive. 
They  prophetically  weigh  and  measure  the  lexicographer.  Nobody  can 
doubt  what  sort  of  orthography  will  follow  such  a  preamble.  The  "  ten- 
dencies "  which  it  would  puzzle  any  other  philologist  to  discover,  the 


complacent  "  solicitude  "  with  which  those  tendencies  are  "  watched  and 
cherished"  and  the  heroism  which  summarily  removes  impeding  "  excep- 
tions," (regardless  of  consequences,  as  reformers  always  nobly  proclaim 
themselves,)  are  consistent  with  each  other,  and  pleasant  to  look  upon. 

2.  Webster  found  fifteen  or  twenty  words  derived  from  the  French, 
and  retaining  their  original  termination  in  re,  "  although  numerous  other 
words,  of  similar  derivation  and  termination,  had  gradually  conformed  to 
English  spelling ; "  that  is,  the  re  had  been  transposed  to  er,  as,  cidre  to 
cider,  chambre  to  chamber,  etc.  What  Webster  means  by  the  term 
"  English  spelling,"  in  this  connection,  is  not  obvious ;  re  is  as  consistent 
with  any  admitted  or  fixed  principle  of  English  orthography  as  er  ;  but 
the  reason  why  these  fifteen  or  twenty  words  retained  their  original  ter- 
mination, and  why  Webster  should  have  let  them  alone,  is  obvious  enough 
to  every  one  but  himself;  namely,  that  their  derivatives  required  it.  As 
Webster  found  the  words,  they  stood  thus : 

theatre,  theatrical, 

sepulchre,        sepulchral, 

centre,  central, 


lustre, 

lustrous,  etc.,  etc. 

As  he  left  them,  they  stand  thus : 

theater, 

theatrical, 

sepulcher, 

sepulchral, 

center, 

central, 

luster, 

lustrous,  etc.,  etc. ; 

that  is,  he  transposed  the  termination  of  the  primitive,  to  conform  to  his 
ride,  and  then  retransposed  it  in  the  derivative  to  conform  to  "  English 
spelling."     His  derivatives  should  be, 

theaterical, 

sepulcheral, 

centeral, 

lusterous,  etc. 
Acre,  massacre,  lucre,  he  says  "  are  necessary  exceptions."  Doubtless 
they  are  "  necessary  "  to  his  rule,  and  that  proves  his  rule  to  be  a  bad 
one ;  it  neither  "  promotes  simplicity  "  nor  "  broadens  analogy."  When 
derivatives  on  the  one  hand,  and  pronunciation  on  the  other,  oppose  the 
working  of  an  arbitrary  rule,  a  prudent  man  would  withhold  his  rule ; 
but  reformers  are  seldom  prudent  men.  In  direct  contradiction  of  this 
rule,  Webster  spells  ogre  with  the  original  termination. 

3.  For  reasons  satisfactory  to  Webster  —  ante,  rule  number  3  —  it  was 


8 

necessary  to  strike  out  the  "  superfluous  I"  of  travelling,  and  "  about  fifty 
similar  words."  If  the  precept  in  rule  number  2  has  any  force,  namely, 
that  the  spelling  must  not  be  altered  when  altering  it  endangers  the  pro- 
nunciation, some  of  these  fifty  changes  will  be  found  hazardous.  For 
instance,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  by  orthoepical  construction, 

shaveling, 

starveling,  etc., 
are  words  of  two  syllables ;  yet,  under  this  rule,  Webster  ordains  that 


traveling,  etc., 
which  have  precisely  the  same  orthoepical  construction,  shall  be  pro- 
nounced in  three  syllables.  Here,  then,  is  arbitrary  rule  the  second,  in 
direct  conflict  with  arbitrary  rule  the  first.  Which  must  give  way  ?  But 
that  is  not  all.  Webster  says  that  chancellor,  metallurgy,  and  crystalline 
retain  the  11  because  they  are  derived  directly  from  the  Latin  and  Greek. 
This  "  because  "  may  as  well  be  investigated.  The  lexicographer  bases 
an  orthographical  principle  on  his  simple  assertion  of  a  fact ;  but  that 
fact  is,  first,  inherently  improbable ;  secondly,  is  utterly  beyond  the  as- 
sertor's  knowledge ;  and  thirdly,  would  not  support  his  position  if  it  were 
true.  1.  It  is  improbable.  The  three  words  necessarily  came  to  the 
French  before  they  were  adopted  by  the  English;  and  as  xgycmxllog 
changed  into  crystallinus  on  its  journey  through  Rome,  they  all  went 
"directly"  from  Italy  to  France;  and  our  English  ancestors  had  no 
occasion  to  go  to  Italy  for  what  was  already  to  be  had  by  crossing  the 
Channel.  Moreover,  the  h  of  chancellor  proves  that  it  came  "  directly  " 
from  the  French,  and  Webster  disproves  his  own  assertion  of  its  deriva- 
tion from  cancellarius,  by  giving,  in  his  own  dictionary,  chancelier  as  its 
etymology  !  2.  It  is  beyond  the  assertor's  knowledge.  Neither  he  nor 
his  great-grandfather  was  there  when  the  word  was  adopted ;  no  human 
being  can  affirm,  as  truth,  what  is  so  remote  and  conjectural ;  and  a  vague 
and  rash  guess  forms  no  apology,  even,  for  such  an  affirmation.  3.  If  the 
words  were  "  directly  so  derived,"  the  fact  would  not  justify  Webster's 
excepting  them  from  his  rule.  That  rule  is,  inferentially  —  otherwise,  it 
has  no  meaning  whatever  —  that  words  "  directly  derived  "  always  retain 
the  11  of  their  originals.  Yet  observe  how  Webster  himself  sets  this  rule 
at  nought  in  this  very  dictionary : 

excel,  spelled  with  one  I,  is  derived  from  excello  ; 

dispel,  "  ■  "  dispello ; 

repel,  "  "  "  repello ; 


libel,  spelled  with  one  /,  is  derived  from  libellus  ; 
pupil,  "  "  "  pupillus ; 

compel,  "  "  "  compello ; 

and  so  forth,  and  so  forth.  Nor  is  this  all.  After  Webster  has  expunged 
the  "  superfluous  I "  from  his  "  fifty  words,"  marvellous,  counsellor,  etc., 
in  obedience  to  rule  number  3,  he  proceeds,  in  defiance  of  the  same  rule, 
to  spell  in  his  dictionary  as  follows  : 

gravel,  (primitive,)  lamel,  (primitive,) 

gravelly,  lamellar, 

chapel,  (primitive,)  lamellarly, 

chapellany,  lamellate, 

cancel,  (primitive,)  lamellated, 

cancellate,  lamelliferous, 

cancellated,  etc.,  etc., 

cancellation, 
and  so  on,  indefinitely.  There  is  another  point  to  be  considered,  about 
rule  number  3.  Its  phraseology  seems  to  be  plain,  but  Webster's  prac- 
tice confuses  it.  The  rule  says,  that  when  the  accent  falls  on  the  final 
consonant  of  the  primitive,  it  is  to  be  doubled  in  the  derivative,  and  not 
otherwise ;  as,  forget,  forgetting,  in  the  one  case,  and  travel,  traveler,  in 
the  other.     Yet  Webster  spells 

tranquil,  tranquillity,  etc., 
as  if  he  were  prepared  to  say,  that,  though  the  accent  does  not  fall  on  the 
final  consonant  of  the  primitive  while  it  remains  a  primitive,  yet  if  that 
consonant  takes  the  accent  when  the  word  becomes  a  derivative,  it  is  still 
to  be  doubled.  This  would  be  interpreting  Webster's  rule  with  a  large 
latitude  in  his  favor,  and  it  is  an  interpretation  to  which  he  is  by  no  means 
entitled.  Nevertheless,  give  him  the  full  benefit  of  it,  and  then  apply  the 
rule,  so  construed,  to  his  spelling  of 

civil,  civility, 

legal,  legality, 

frugal,         frugality,  etc., 
and,  then,  for  a  counter-contradiction  of  his  rule,  where  the  final  con- 
sonant of  the  primitive  is  accented,  and  the  same  consonant  in  the  deriv- 
ative is  not,  take  his  spelling  of 

excel,     excellent, 
and  the  lexicographer's  inconsistency  approaches  the  sublime !     It  is  to  be 
observed  that  the  spelling  of  the  twenty  and  odd'  words  here  cited  is  cor- 
rect in  fact,  but  is  not  correct  according  to  Webster's  own  rules. 
2 


10 

4.  Webster  specifies  license,  among  other  words,  as  having  been  changed 
from  licence,  "  because  the  derivatives  require  the  s"  This  affirmation 
is  an  extraordinary  "  license  "  for  a  lexicographer  whose  dictionary  con- 
tains the  following  words : 

license,  licentiate, 

licensed,  licentiation, 

licensing,         licentious, 

licenser,  licentiously, 

licensure,  licentiousness ; 
that  is,  four  derivatives  in  which  the  s  is  used,  and  five  where  it  is  not. 
And  this  misstatement  of  the  fact  is  material,  because  Webster  makes  it 
one  of  his  points  of  justification  in  "  changing  the  only  three  words  that 
remain,  terminating  in  ence."  But  what  does  Webster  mean  by  saying 
that  pretence,  offence,  and  defence,  are  "  the  only  three  words  that  remain 
terminating  in  ence  "  ?  His  own  dictionary  contains  many  other  words 
"  terminating  in  ence,"  the  derivatives  of  which  do  not  retain  the  c,  all  of 
which  he  leaves  just  as  he  finds  them,  in  a  state  of  absolute  non-conformity 
to  his  rule.     For  example : 

sentence,  sententious, 

consequence,      consequential, 

inference,  inferential, 

and  so  on.  If  a  direct  answer  could  have  been  extorted  from  Webster, 
it  would  be  pleasant  to  see  his  reply  to  this  question :  Since  it  was  neces- 
sary to  change  defence  into  defense,  because  defensive  is  spelled  with  an 
s,  why  should  sentence  remain  unchanged,  when  its  derivatives  are  spelled 
with  a  i?  Webster  says,  "  The  question  has  been  asked,  Why  not  spell 
fence  with  an  s  ?  "  And  he  finds  "  nothing  easier  than  the  reply,  that 
the  derivatives  offence  require  the  c."  If  this  reply  means  any  thing,  it 
means  that  the  spelling  of  a  derivative  must  control  the  spelling  of  its 
primitive ;  and  if  this  rule  has  any  force,  it  must  be  general  in  its  appli- 
cation, and'  not  restricted  to  such  isolated  cases  as  Webster's  caprice  may 
dictate.  The  reader  will  have  occasion  to  keep  this  point  in  remem- 
brance. Now,  what  are  "  the  primitives,"  in  the  case  of  fence,  offence, 
and  defence  ?  Webster's  dictionary  gives  the  answer : 
fend,  the  root  of  offend  and  defend; 
fence,  for  etymology,  see  fend; 
in  other  words,  fend  is  the  original  word ;  and  from  it,  in  order,  come 
fence,  offend,  defend,  offence,  offensive,  etc.,  defence,  defensive,  etc.  So 
that,  when  Webster  changed  defence  to  defense,  instead  of  conforming  to 


11 

his  rule,  that  the  spelling  of  the  derivative  must  govern  that  of  the  prim- 
itive, he,  in  fact,  and  without  knowing  it,  practically  enacted  a  new  rule, 
that  the  spelling  of  one  derivative  must  govern  the  spelling  of  another 
derivative,  whenever  the  lexicographer  deemed  it  expedient.  The 
remaining  word  of  the  "  only  three  that  remained,"  is  pretence.  Here, 
again,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  the  actual  primitive  is  pretend;  but,  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  let  pretence  be  the  primitive,  and  then  consult 
Webster's  dictionary  : 

pretense, 

pretensed,  (Encyc.) 

pretension ; 
the  primitive,  pretence,  is  changed,  to  conform  to  its  two  derivatives. 
But  what  sort  of  a  modern  English  word  is  pretensed  ?  Webster  cites 
the  Encyclopaedia  as  authority.  What  Encyclopaedia  ?  Rule  out  the 
word,  for  the  present,  as  not  sufficiently  accredited,  and  there  remains  one 
primitive  vs.  one  derivative ;  a  tie  vote.  But  this  is  not  a  fair  statement 
on  the  part  of  Webster ;  he  omits  the  familiar  word  pretentious.  His 
dictionary,  which  "  contains  16,000  more  words  than  can  be  found  in  any 
previous  dictionary,"  and  which  attains  that  distinction  by  recruits  from 
all  creditable  and  discreditable  sources,  nevertheless  does  not  contain  the 
word  pretentious.  Why  ?  Did  Webster  omit  that,  and  insert  pretensed, 
in  order  to  give  "  the  derivatives  "  a  uniformity  of  spelling,  and  a  major- 
ity of  numbers  ?  If  so,  the  proceeding  smacks  strongly  of  false  "  pre- 
tences." 

5,  6.  Under  rule  number  3,  Webster  hunts  down  the  "superfluous  I" 
with  the  spirit  of  an  exterminator ;  and  in  his  preface,  he  still  further 
hardens  himself  against  I,  by  quoting  a  sneer  from  Walker  ;  but  Web- 
ster, under  rule  number  3,  and  Webster  under  rules  5  and  6,  are  two 
different  men.  The  reasons  given  for  adding  an  I  to  some  words  are 
quite  as  good  as  the  reasons  for  taking  it  away  from  others ;  of  which, 
more  anon.  In  the  mean  time,  it  is  impossible  not  to  suggest,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  quotation  from  Walker,  (vide  rule  number  6,)  that  as  dul- 
ness  should  be  written  dullness,  because  its  primitive  is  written  dull, 
skilful  should  be  written  skillfull,  to  "  complete  the  analogy  "  with  stiff- 
ness. An  illustration,  however,  is  a  dangerous  form  of  argument ;  it  is 
very  apt  to  prove  too  much,  and  those  who  resort  to  it  in  one  case  must 
submit  to  it  in  another.  Apply  this  to  rule  number  5.  "  Distil,  etc., 
should  be  written  distill,  because  the  derivatives,  distiller,  etc.,  require 
the  11;"  then,  certainly,  forget,  submit,  begin,  refer,  concur,  repel,  and  so 


12 

on,  should  be  written  forgett,  submitt,  beginn,  referr,  concurr,  repell,  and 
so  on,  because  their  derivatives  require  the  final  consonant  to  be  doub- 
led ;  as,  forgetting,  submitting,  beginning,  referring,  concurring,  repelling. 
By  the  way,  Webster's  views  of  the  powers  of  a  lexicographer  are 
pleasantly  illustrated  in  a  remark  about  Walker.  Having  quoted,  in  his 
preface,  Walker's  opinion  on  "  the  superfluous  /,"  he  says,  "  These  were 
the  deliberate  opinions  of  Walker.  If  he  had  taken  the  trouble  to 
carry  them  into  his  vocabulary,  instead  of  relying  on  this  mere  remark 
for  the  correction  of  the  error,  probably,  by  this  time,  the  error  would 
have  been  wholly  eradicated  from  our  orthography." 

7.  Webster's  manner  of  stating  this  rule  leads  the  reader  to  suppose 
that  befall,  install,  forestall,  inthrall,  miscall,  and  enroll,  are  Webster's 
improvements  on  the  previous  spelling ;  but  the  last  two,  only,  are  his ; 
and  it  is  very  odd  that,  when  he  became  alive  to  the  danger  of  mis- 
pronouncing enrol  with  one  7,  he  should  be  so  insensible  to  the  same 
danger  in  control,  as  to  spell  it  with  a  single  I;  and  that,  too,  while  he 
spells  the  derivatives  controlling^  etc.,  with  the  double  I,  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  his  own  rule  number  5. 

8.  "  Mould  and  moult  should  be  written  mold  and  molt,  because  the  u 
has  been  dropped,  or  never  was  used,  in  gold,  bold,  fold,  and  colt."  The 
reason  is  good,  and  its  force  may  be  shown,  as  in  rule  number  5,  by 
carrying  out  the  illustration ;  court  should  be  written  cort,  "  because  the 
u  has  been  dropped,  or  never  was  used  in"  port  and  fort! 

9.  Webster  found  wo,  go,  so,  no,  without  the  e,  and  foe,  toe,  hoe, 
with  it.  His  reason  for  adding  the  e  to  wo,  and  for  not  adding  it  to  go, 
so,  no,  is,  that  wo  is  a  noun,  and  the  other  three  words  are  "  other  parts 
of  speech."  This  is  a  small  matter,  at  best ;  but  Webster's  reason  is  en- 
tirely arbitrary. 

10.  Waiving  the  questions  whether  Milton  is  an  authority  for  Eng- 
lish orthography  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  if  he  is  so,  whether  hight 
is  not  misprinted  from  his  manuscript  per  alium,  one  question  remains 
touching  rule  number  10,  viz. :  Is  there  any  disputed  point  in  ethics,  mor- 
als, religion,  astronomy,  or  nursery  rhymes,  which  may  not  be  effectually 
disposed  of  by  this  universal  solvent  "  because  "?  A  word,  however,  as 
to  Milton,  on  the  questions  waived.  Webster  cites  a  poet  who  died  a 
century  and  a  half  before  the  "  American  Dictionary  "  was  born,  in  sup- 
port of  the  spelling  of  the  single  word  hight.  But,  surely,  Milton,  if 
an  authority  at  all,  cannot  be  restricted  to  one  word ;  he  must  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  had  a  knowledge  of  orthography  generally,  if  he  is  per- 


13 

mitted  to  dogmatize  on  it  particularly ;  and  if  Webster  accredits  him  as 
a  standard,  he  must  follow  him  as  a  standard.  Turn,  then,  to  the  first 
edition  of  Paradise  Lost.  That  may  pretty  safely  be  taken  as  an 
exponent  of  the  poet's  principles  of  English  spelling  —  if,  in  his  blind- 
ness, he  had  any.  This  edition,  published  in  London  in  1669,  has,^?as- 
sim,  the  following  specimens : 

Som  (some),  rowled  (rolled),  shon  (shone),  tast  (taste),  fowl  (foul), 
thir  (their),  justifie,  defie,  adversarie,  progenie,  alwaies,  skie,  appeer, 
neer,  deer,  binde,  manhinde,  wilde,  waye,  ruine,  cherube,  haire,  paine, 
forme,  eare,  gulfe,  rime,  accoste,  meeter,  mee,  hee,  seaventh,  warr,  clann, 
hmn,farr,  lyes,  onely,  desperat,  supream,  sollid,  etc. 

11.  Webster  does  not  say  ivhy  "verbs  from  the  Greek  i£w  terminate 
in  ize,  as  baptize,"  etc.,  nor  why  "catechise  and  exorcise  are  excep- 
tions." But  the  working  of  his  rule,  under  which  he  changes  defence  to 
defense,  because  defensive  requires  the  s,  seems  to  be  impeded  when 
applied  to  baptize,  for  he  leaves  it  as  he  finds  it,  although  he  is  compelled 
to  spell  its  derivatives  with  an  s ;  baptist,  baptism,  baptismal,  etc.  The 
assertion  that  baptize  and  legalize  are  "  derived  directly  from  the  Greek," 
needs  confirmation.  Webster  proceeds  to  say  that  "verbs  and  some 
nouns,  derived  from  the  French  and  elsewhere,  have  the  termination  in 
we,"  and  he  furnishes  a  list  of  examples  that  professes  to  include  the 
whole.  The  necessity  for  the  remark  and  the  citations  is  not  very  ob- 
vious ;  but  it  is  strange  that  with  his  propensity  to  "  complete  analogies," 
he  should  have  omitted  to  include,  in  his  list  the  single  and  "  only  re- 
maining" word  prize ;  certainly,  on  his  own  showing,  that  should  be 
spelled  prise. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  Webster's  much  vaunted  reform  is  limited 
to  about  eighty  words  in  a  dictionary  containing  eighty  thousand  words ; 
being  the  proportion  of  one  to  a  thousand.  A  homoeopathic  quantity ; 
yet,  as  the  words  victimized  are  those  in  common  use,  the  minute  dose 
has  had  a  visible  effect  on  the  system.  But  the  effect  is  not  remedial. 
The  patient  is  no  better.  English  orthography  has  not  been  simplified, 
nor  have  its  analogies  been  broadened  by  Webster's  labors,  even  sup- 
posing his  innovations  had  been  accepted  by  scholars  —  which  they  have 
not.  The  dictionary  may  sell,  but  not  for  its  orthography.  The  proprie- 
tors of  a  large  publishing  house,  who  are  also  publishers  of  the  dictionary, 
have  introduced  Webster's  spelling  into  their  books,  probably  as  a  matter 
of  contract ;  and  some  newspapers  have,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  taken 
the  same  course.     But  these  instances  carry  no  authority  on  a  purely 


H 

literary  question.  Educated  men  and  good  writer?,  generally,  have  re- 
pudiated the  experiment.  And  why  should  they  not?  The  volunteer 
reformer  was  every  way  unequal  to  his  task.  He  has  given  no  good 
reason  for  any  one  change ;  and  his  changes,  so  far  as  adopted,  have 
introduced  confusion.  His  rules  are  ridiculous  in  themselves,  irreconcila- 
ble with  each  other,  and  constantly  at  variance  with  his  own  practice. 
He  changes  a  termination,  or  adds  or  takes  away  a  letter,  because  the 
primitive  requires  it  —  because  the  derivative  requires  it  —  because  it 
endangers  the  pronunciation,  when  it  does  not  —  because  it  secures  the 
pronunciation,  when  it  does  not  —  because  the  word  is  a  noun  —  because 
it  isn't  a  noun  —  because  it  is  an  exception  —  because  it  is  so  pronounced 
(by  ignorant  people) — because  Milton  spelled  it  so  —  in  short,  "be- 
cause "  any  thing  that  fits  the  caprice  of  the  moment.  Such  advancing 
and  retreating,  such  convolutions  and  involutions  of  reasoning,  all  for  the 
sake  of  doing  what  never  was  done  before,  and  all  within  the  compass  of 
eighty  words,  can  find  no  precedent  in  the  career  of  reforms. 

And  it  is  remarkable,  that  Webster,  with  all  his  plodding,  could  not 
hit  upon  the  really  weak  points  of  the  language.  He  had  the  luck  always 
to  attack  what  was  impregnable  —  at  least,  to  his  assaults.  There  is  no 
lack  of  inconsistencies  in  English  orthography ;  but  the  instances  that  are 
least  defensible  are  just  those  that  Webster  failed  to  discover.  It  may 
be  well  to  designate  a  few  specimens  —  not  with  the  intention  of  urging 
a  reform ;  Webster's  experience  in  that  line  may  well  deter  imitators ; 
but  —  to  show  how  obscure  are  obvious  truths  to  a  certain  class  of  in- 
vestigators. 

To  lead,  to  read)  the  preterite  and  past  participle  of  these  verbs  are 
pronounced  led  and  red,  and  yet  are  spelled  led  and  read. 

Use,  abuse,  rise ;  the  nouns  and  verbs  have  a  uniform  spelling,  but 
the  nouns  are  pronounced  as  uce  and  ice,  and  the  verbs  uze  and  ize  ;  yet 
advice  and  advise,  with  a  similar  difference  of  pronunciation,  are  spelled 
to  conform  to  that  difference.  Again,  surprise,  surmise,  etc.,  pronounce 
the  s  like  z,  in  both  the  verb  and  the  noun. 

Few  and  view  ;  why  should  not  the  spelling  of  these  words  be  uniform  ? 

Whole  in  the  adverb  drops  the  e,  and  becomes  wholly ;  vile  in  the 
adverb  retains  the  e,  vilely. 

Fascinate  and  vacillate  ;  one  with  the  5  and  the  other  without  it ;  im- 
itate and  imminent ;  one  with  one  m,  and  the  other  with  two.  These 
words  follow  their  respective  etymologies,  but  there  are  so  many  instances 
where  etymology  does  not  control  orthography,  it  seems  rather  Websterian 
to  give  that  as  a  reason  for  the  difference. 


15 

Vermilion,  pavilion,  cotillion ;  all  directly  from  the  French,  and  all 
having  the  11  in  the  original,  though  only  the  last  retains  it. 

Boot,  root,  foot,  in  the  singular,  change,  in  the  plural,  to  boots,  roots, 
feet 

Proffer  and  profit,  with  a  similar  etymology,  are  thus  differently 
speDed. 

Couple  and  supple,  from  the  French  couple  and  souple  ;  etymology  in 
all  respects  identical,  and  yet,  though  pronounced  alike  in  English,  are 
thus  diversely  spelled. 

Episode  and  epitome  have  the  same  etymology,  yet  one  has  three  syl- 
lables, and  the  other  four ;  this,  however,  is  not  a  matter  of  spelling,  but 
of  pronunciation. 

These  are  a  few  examples  of  real  inconsistency  in  English  orthog- 
raphy ;  but  probably  no  man  in  his  senses  would  undertake  to  reform 
them ;  the  game  would  not  pay  for  the  candle. 

Webster's  tampering  with  the  language  was  a  calamity,  because  no 
radicalism  is  without  its  followers,  and  he  has  his.  But  the  thing  will 
have  its  day,  and  this  good  may  come  of  it  —  other  enthusiasts,  taking 
warning  from  his  example,  may  learn  that  a  reformer  whose  entire  theory 
is  based  on  assumptions,  whose  rules  are  bare  assertions  of  his  opinions, 
and  whose  practice  is  inconsistent  with  both,  will  never  make  much  prog- 
ress among  educated  minds. 


Worcester's  New  Dictionary 

A 

PRONOUNCING,  EXPLANATORY  AND  SYNONYMOUS 

DICTIONARY 


OP  THE 


ENGLISH    LANGUAGE: 


"WITH 


I.  —  PRONUNCIATION    OP   GREEK    AND   LATIN   PROPER    NAMES. 
H.  —  PRONUNCIATION    OF   SCRIPTURE    PROPER   NAMES. 
HI.  —  COMMON   CHRISTIAN   NAMES,   WITH   THEIR    SIGNIFICATION. 
IV.  —  PRONUNCIATION    OF    MODERN    GEOGRAPHICAL    NAMES. 
V.  —  ABBREVIATIONS    USED    IN    WRITING    AND    PRINTING. 
VI.  —  PHRASES  AND  QUOTATIONS  IN  LATIN,  FRENCH,  ITALIAN,  AND  SPANISH. 
VH.  —  THE  PRINCIPAL   DEITIES  AND  HEROES  IN  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  FABU- 
LOUS   HISTORY. 

By    JOSEPH    E.   WORCESTER,    LL.  D. 
Octavo.    565  Pages. 


This  Dictionary,  designed  for  the  use  of  Colleges,  Academics, 
High  Schools,  and  Private  Libraries,  bears  on  every  page  indubi- 
table marks  of  having  been  carefully  and  skilfully  prepared  by  Dr. 
Worcester,  whose  previous  contributions  to  our  educational  litera- 
ture have  been  models  of  condensation,  of  lucid  arrangement,  and 
of  concise  and  perspicuous  language,  in  their  mode  of  presenting 
the  results  of  extensive  and  accurate  research. 

In  the  department  of  Definitions,  he  has  not  contented  himself 
with  merely  giving  the  accepted  significations  of  a  word,  but  has 


WORCESTER    S     NEW     DICTIONARY. 

shown  in  what  connections  or  relations  it  is  appropriately  replaced 
by  nearly  equivalent  words.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  term 
synonymous  in  the  title^plt^adds  greatly  to  copiousness  and  variety 
in  speech  and  writing  to  be  able  to  substitute  one  word  for  another 
without  an  essential  alteration  of  the  idea  to  be  expressed.  But  it 
is  very  difficult  to  discriminate  with  accuracy  between  several 
expressions  nearly  related,  and  to  select  that  which  shall  be  most 
appropriate  in  a  given  case.  Very  few,  even  of  the  best  speakers 
and  writers,  become  so  thoroughly  masters  of  their  native  language 
as  never  to  experience  embarrassment  in  the  search  after  a  fit 
expression.  It  is  to  help  in  overcoming  this  difficulty  that  Dr. 
Worcester  has  introduced,  in  connection  with  those  words  which 
seem  most  to  require  it,  a  short  exhibition  of  the  synonymous  terms, 
showing  at  a  glance  the  distinctions  to  be  noticed  in  choosing  among 
them.     Take,  for  example,  the  following  words :  — 

j^-bXn'don,  v.  a.  To  give  up;  to  quit;  to  forsake;  to  desert;  to  leave;  to  relinquish ;  to  re- 
sign; to  renounce;  to  abdicate;  to  surrender;  to  forego. 

Syn.  —  Bad  parents  abandon  their  children ;  men  abandon  the  unfortunate  objects  of  their 
guilty  passions;  men  are  abandoned  by  their  friends;  they  abandon  themselves  to  unlawful 
pleasures. — A  mariner  abandons  bis  vessel  and  cargo  in  a  storm ;  we  abandon  our  houses 
and  property  to  an  invading  army ;  we  desert  a  post  or  station ;  leave  the  country ;  forsake 
companions;  relinquish  claims ;  quit  business;  resign  an  office ;  renounce  a  profession,  or  the 
world ;  abdicate  a  throne ;  surrender  a  town ;  surrender  what  we  have  in  trust ;  we  abandon 
a  measure  or  an  enterprise ;  forego  a  claim  or  a  pleasure.  » 

^D-vIce',  n.    Counsel;  instruction:  —  intelligence. 

Syn. —  A  physician  gives  advice;  a  parent,  counsel ;  a  teacher,  instruction : — advice,  intel- 
ligence, or  information  may  be  received  from  a  correspondent. 

^-MAZE',  ».  o.    To  astonish;  perplex;  confound. 

Syn.  —  Amazed  at  what  is  frightful  or  incomprehensible;  astonished  at  what  is  striking ; 
perplexed,  confounded,  or  confused  at  what  is  embarrassing ;  surprised  at  what  is  unexpected. 

Am-bXs'sa-dqr,  n.  A  foreign  minister  of  the  highest  rank  sent  on  public  business  from  one 
sovereign  power  to  another. 

Syn.  —  An  ambassador  and  plenipotentiary  imply  the  highest  representative  rank.  An 
ambassador  and  resident,  or  minister  resident,  are  permanent  functionaries.  An  envoy  and 
resident  are  functionaries  of  the  second  class  of  foreign  ministers;  and  a  charge"  d'affaires  il 
one  of  the  third  or  lowest  class. 

A-NAL'Y-sTs,  n. ;  pi.  A-nXl'y-SE§.  The  resolution  of  any  thing  into  its  first  elements  or  com- 
ponent parts;  —  opposed  to  synthesis,  which  is  the  union  of  the  component  parts  to  form  a 
compound.    Synthesis  is  synonymous  with  composition;  analysis,  with  decomposition. 

As-so-CJ-a'TIQN,  (as-so-she-a'shun)  n.    Confederacy;  partnership;  connection;  union. 

Sun.  —  An  ecclesiastical  or  scientific  association;  a  confederacy  of  states;  &  partnership  in 
trade;  a  connection  between  persons;  a  combination  of  individuals;  a  union  of  parties  or  of 
states. 

Av-A-Rt"ciQUS,  (av-a-rlsh'us) a.  Possessed  of  avarice;  greedy  of  gain;  covetous;  niggardly; 
miserly;    parsimonious;  penurious. 

Syn. — The  avaricious  are  unwilling  to  part  with  their  money;  the  covetous  are  eager  to 
obtain  money ;  the  niggardly  are  mean  in  their  dealings  with  others ;  the  miserly,  parsimo- 
nious, and  penurious  are  mean  to  themselves,  as  well  as  to  others. 

Cfis'TQM,  7i.  The  frequent  repetition  of  the  same  act;  habit;  habitual  practice;  usage:  — 
patronage :  —  duties  on  exports  and  imports.    See  Taxes. 

Si/n.  —  Custom  is  a  frequent  repetition  of  the  same  act;  habit  is  the  effect  of  such  repett 
tiou ;  fashion  is  the  custom  of  numbers ;  usage,  the  habit  of  numbers. 

D?-ceiv'er,  n.    One  who  deceives ;  a  cheat. 

Syn.  —  A  deceiver  or  cheat  imposes  on  individuals;  an  impostor,  on  the  public. 


WORCESTER'S     NEW     DICTIONARY. 


De-fend',  v.  a.    To  protect ;  to  vindicate ;  to  repel. 

Syn. —  Defend  the  innocent;  protect  the  weak;  vindicate  those  who  are  unjustly  accused; 
repel  aggression. 

Dj§-cern'ment,  (djz-ze*rn'ment)  n.    Act  of  discerning;  ^^tration ;  sagacity;  judgment. 
Syn.  —  Discernment  to  distinguish ;  penetration  or  sagaTRg  to  perceive ;  discrimination  to 
mark  differences ;  judgment  to  decide. 

HIs'tq-ry,  n.  A  narrative  of  past  events ;  a  relation  of  facts  respecting  nations,  empires,  &c. 
—  Civil  or  political  history  is  the  history  of  states  and  empires.  Profane  history  is  another 
term  for  civil  history,  as  distinguished  from  sacred  history,  which  is  the  historical  part  of  the 
Scriptures.  Ecclesiastical  history  is  the  history  of  the  Christian  church.  Natural  history  is 
the  history  of  all  the  productions  of  nature,  animal,  vegetable,  and  mineral. 

Syn.  —  Annals  are  historical  events  digested  in  a  series  according  to  years ;  a  clironide  is  a 
register  of  events  in  the  order  of  time ;  memoirs,  an  account  of  events  or  transactions  writ- 
ten familiarly,  or  as  they  are  remembered  by  the  narrator. 

Xn'FJ-del,  n.    A  disbeliever  of  Christianity;  an  atheist;  an  unbeliever. 

Syn.  —  An  infidel  is  one  who  has  no  belief  in  divine  revelation ;  unbeliever  and  disbeliever 
are  terms  commonly,  but  not  always,  used  in  the  same  sense :  —  a  sceptic  professes  to  doubt 
of  all  things : — a  deist  believes  in  the  existence  of  God,  but  disbelieves  revelation  :  —  an  athe- 
ist denies  the  existence  of  God :  — freethinker  is  commonly  used  in  an  ill  6enso,  as  synony- 
mous with  infidel. 

LXn'gua<^e  (lang'gwaj),  n.  The  mode  of  utterance;  human  speech;  the  speech  of  one  na- 
tion; tongue;  dialect;  idiom;  style. 

Syn.  —  Language  is  a  very  general  term,  as  we  say  the  language  not  only  of  men,  but  of 
beasts  and  birds.  Tongue  refers  to  an  original  language,  as  the  Hebrew  tongue.  Speech 
contemplates  language  as  broken  or  cut  into  words,  as  the  parts  of  speech,  the  gift  of  speech. 
Every  language  has  its  peculiar  idioms.  A  dialect  is  an  incidental  form  of  a  language  used 
by  the  inhabitants  of  a  particular  district.  The  Greek  language ;  Greek  idiom ;  Attic  dia> 
led.    Native  or  vernacular  language ;  mother  tongue.    Elegant  or  good  language  or  style. 

LlW'YER,  n.    One  versed  in  law;  an  attorney. 

Syn.  —  Lawyer  is  a  general  term  for  one  who  is  versed  in,  or  who  practises  law.  —  Barris- 
ter, counsellor,  and  counsel,  are  terms  applied  to  lawyers  who  advise  and  assist  clients,  and 
plead  for  them  in  a  court  of  justice.  —  An  attorney  is  a  Lawyer  who  acts  for  another,  and  pre- 
pares cases  for  trial.  —  An  advocate  is  a  lawyer  who  argues  causes.  —  A  special  pleader  is  one 
who  prepares  the  written  pleadings  in  a  cause.  —  A  chamber  counsellor  is  a  lawyer  who  gives 
advice  in  his  office,  but  does  not  act  in  court.  —  A  conveyancer  is  one  who  draws  writings,  by 
which  real  estate  is  transferred. —  Civilian  and  jurist  are  terms  applied  to  such  as  are  versed 
in  the  science  of  law,  particularly  civil  or  Roman  law.  —  A  solicitor  is  a  lawyer  employed  in 
a  chancery  court.  —  A  publicist  is  a  writer  on  the  laws  of  nature  and  nations. 

These  instances  will  suffice  to  give  an  idea  of  the  very  great  ben- 
efit one  may  receive  by  having  this  Dictionary  at  hand  while  engaged 
in  composition ;  and  to  young  pupils  in  our  schools  who  are  making 
their  first  attempts  at  expressing  their  thoughts  in  writing,  such  a 
book  must  be  invaluable.  At  the  same  time  it  will  not  be  less 
useful  as  a  guide  in  all  other  matters  upon  which  dictionaries 
are  usually  consulted.  The  definitions,  though  concisely  expressed, 
are  accurate,  and  sufficiently  full  to  satisfy  all  ordinary  inquiries. 
In  Spelling,  the  most  approved  usage  is  followed,  without  any 
attempt  at  innovation,  and  the  various  modes  of  Pronunciation 
are  given,  with  their  several  authorities,  the  author's  preference 
being  only  intimated,  but  not  insisted  on. 

In  the  Appendix  we  find,  the  Vocabularies  of  Classical,  Scripture, 
and  Modern  Geographical  Names,  which  were  contained  in  the 
Comprehensive  Dictionary,  here  much  enlarged,  and,  in  addition,  a 


Worcester's   new   dictionary. 

list  of  common  Christian  names  of  men  and  women,  with  their 
etymologies  and  signification,  in  the  perusal  of  which  one  may  find 
much  instruction  and  amusement. 

Numerous  letters  have  been  received  by  the  publishers,  and  others 
by  the  author  (to  which  the  publishers  have  had  access),  from  some 
of  the  most  distinguished  teachers  and  literary  men  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  The  following  extracts  will  show  in  what  esti- 
mation the  work  is  held  by  them. 

From  the  Hon.  Edward  Everett,  LL.  D. 

Boston,  Mass.,  November  19,  1855. 

I  willingly  comply  with  your  request  that  I  would  express  my  opinion  of 
the  Pronouncing,  Explanatory,  and  Synonymous  Dictionary,  by  Mr.  Worces- 
ter, of  which  you  were  good  enough  to  send  me  a  copy  a  few  weeks  since. 
As  far  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  examine  it,  I  find  this  new  Dictionary  to  be 
marked  with  the  characteristics  of  Mr.  Worcester's  former  works  of  the 
same  class,  viz.,  accuracy  as  to  matters  of  undisputed  fact,  and  sound  judg- 
ment as  to  debatable  points.  Tfis  orthography  and  pronunciation  represent, 
as  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  most  approved  usage  of  our  language.  His  defini- 
tions seldom  leave  any  thing  to  desire.  The  synonymes  form  a  valuable 
feature  of  the  present  work,  and  a  novel  one  for  a  manual  dictionary.  The 
matter  contained  in  the  Appendix  is  of  great  value,  and  will  materially  pro- 
mote the  convenience  of  the  reader. 

I  have  made  constant  use  of  Mr.  Worcester's  Dictionaries  since  their  first 
publication,  and  I  consider  the  present  work,  in  some  respects,  an  improve- 
ment on  its  predecessors.  EDWARD  EVERETT. 

From  William  H.  Prescott,  LL.  D. 

Boston,  Mass.,  November  8,  1855. 

I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  present  of  your  excellent  Dictionary.  It 
is  a  welcome  addition  to  my  library ;  for,  though  I  had  provided  myself  with 
an  earlier  edition,  I  was  not  possessed  of  this,  which  evidently  contains  many 
improvements  on  its  predecessors.  I  have  long  since  learned  to  appreciate 
your  valuable  labors,  which  have  done  so  much  to  establish  the  accuracy  of 
pronunciation,  while  affording  the  reader,  by  the  citation  of  authorities,  the 
means  of  determining  for  himself.  Nor  is  the  public  less  indebted  to  you  for 
the  pains  you  have  bestowed  on  settling  the  orthography  of  words,  which  in 
many  instances  affords  ample  debatable  ground  to  the  inquirer.  These  more 
prominent  merits  of  all  your  dictionaries  are  enhanced  by  the  judicious  selec- 
tion of  synonymes,  with  which  the  present  edition  is  enriched. 

A  work  compiled  on  so  sound  and  philosophical  principles,  and  yet  so  well 
accommodated  to  popular  use,  cannot  fail  to  commend  itself  to  all  who  would 
have  a  correct  knowledge  of  their  vernacular. 

WILLIAM  H.  PRESCOTT. 


NEW    DICTIONARY. 


From  Washington  Irving,  LL.  D. 

Sunny  Side,  N.  Y.,  October  3,  1855. 
Accept  my  thanks  for  the  copy  of  your  Pronouncing,  Explanatory,  and 
Synonymous  Dictionary  which  you  have  had  the  kindness  to  send  me.  As 
far  as  I  have  had  time  to  examine  it,  it  gives  me  great  satisfaction,  and  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  well  calculated  to  fulfil  the  purpose  for  which  it  professe* 
to  be  intended  —  to  supply  the  wants  of  common  schools,  and  to  be  a  suffi- 
cient manual  for  schools  of  a  higher  order. 

WASHINGTON  IRVING. 

From  the  Hon.  Josiah  Quincy,  LL.  D.,  late  President  of  Harvard  University 

Quincy,  Mass.,  October  9,  1355. 
As  I  once,  I  think,  told  you,  that  agreeing  with  Lord  Bolingbroke  in  little 
else,  I  shared  his  admiration  and  gratitude  for  toriters  of  dictionaries,  —  he 
thought  them  worthy  of  special  thanks  to  Heaven,  —  works  so  full  of  labor, 
so  extensive  in  their  objects  of  research,  yet  so  minute  in  the  subjects  of 
attention ;  so  useful  as  to  have  become  a  necessity  to  literary  life,  yet  requiring 
for  success  so  many  particulars,  various  in  their  kinds,  so  much  general 
knowledge,  so  much  accuracy  of  thought,  combined  with  judgment  in  inves- 
tigation, that  it  seems  that  nature  must  be  more  than  usually  beneficent  to 
confer  on  any  one  man  all  the  qualities  requisite  to  a  happy  result  in  the 
undertaking.  The  public  have  long  since  passed  judgment  on  your  qualifica- 
tions, and  the  lapse  of  many  years  has  confirmed  its  earliest  decisions. 

JOSIAH  QUINCY. 

From  Francis  Bowen,  A.  M.,  Alford  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy  in  Harvard 
College,  and  late  Editor  of  the  North  American  Review. 

Cambbidge,  Mass.,  October  4,  1855. 
I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  copy  of  your  new  Dictionary,  which  I 
have  examined  with  some  care.  It  seems  well  adapted  to  answer  its  purpose 
as  an  academic  text-book,  being  of  convenient  size,  and  distinctly  printed 
on  good  paper,  so  that  it  can  be  freely  consulted  without  injury  to  the  eyes. 
The  vocabulary  is  full  enough,  and  the  character  of  the  predecessors  of  the 
book  is  a  sufficient  voucher  for  its  accuracy.  The  synonymes  are  a  valuable 
addition  to  the  plan  of  the  work,  and  so  far  as  I  have  examined  them  they 
appear  to  be  concisely  and  clearly  expressed.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  will 
have  the  ample  success  which  has  attended  all  your  previous  publications  on 
lexicography.  FRANCIS   BOWEN. 

From  the  Rev.  Edward  Hitchcock,  D.  D.,  late  President  of  Amherst  College. 

Amherst,  Mass.,  October  3,  1855. 
1  acknowledge  with  gratitude  the  receipt  of  your  new  Pronouncing,  Ex- 
planatory, and  Synonymous  Dictionary.  Having  been  in  the  habit  of  using 
the  "Universal  and  Critical  Dictionary"  almost  exclusively  for  several  years, 
I  shall  welcome  the  new  one  with  its  improvements  and  additions.  So  far  as 
I  have  examined  it,  it  seems  to  me  admirably  adapted  to  the  sphere  it  was 
intended  to  occupy.  I  trust  the  public  will  appreciate  its  value,  and  thus 
reward  you  in  some  measure  for  yoor  indefatigable  and  long- continued  labors 
in  this  department  of  learning.  EDWARD   HITCHCOCK. 


NEW    DICTIONARY, 


from  the  Hon.  John  McLean,  II.  D.,  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  October  21,  1855. 

I  thank  you  for  a  copy  of  your  "  Pronouncing,  Explanatory,  and  Synony- 
mous Dictionary  of  the  English  Language."  Ever  since  the  publication  of 
your  large  Dictionary  I  have  had  it  near  me  in  my  library,  and  one  of  the 
smaller  editions  I  have  always  had  on  my  table,  at  every  place  where  my 
public  duties  call  me. 

I  have  often  felt  desirous  that  you  should  publish  a  more  copious  edition 
than  the  smaller  volume  of  the  work,  without  increasing  its  size  so  as  to  ren- 
der it  unportable.  Your  late  publication  is  all  that  can  be  desired  in  this 
respect :  and  it  contains  much  valuable  information  on  orthography,  and  the 
pronunciation  of  words,  which  is  not  found  in  any  other  dictionary. 

JOHN  MCLEAN. 

From  the  Rev.  Eliphalet  Nott,  D.  D.,  Fres.  of  Union  College,  Schenectady,  N.  Y. 
Union  College,  N.  Y.,  2  October,  1855. 

The  very  acceptable  present  of  a  copy  of  "Worcester's  Academic  Dic- 
tionary "  has  come  to  hand.  With  the  larger  work  I  have  long  been  familiar, 
and  can  cheerfully  bear  testimony  to  its  great  merit.  It  is  at  once  a  monu- 
ment to  the  honor  of  its  author  and  to  the  country  thus  signalized  by  his 
labors.  From  a  glance  at  the  contents  of  this  volume  I  doubt  not  it  will  add 
alike  to  the  literary  wealth  of  the  community  and  to  the  reputation  of  the 
author. 

Trusting  that  this  production,  the  result  of  so  much  patient  toil  and  exten- 
sive research,  will  receive  from  the  public  the  reward  it  so  richly  deserves, 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours,  ELIPH'T  NOTT. 

From  C.  C.  Felton,  LL.  D.,  Eliot  Professor  of  Greek  Literature  in  Harvard 

College. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  October  1,  1855. 
I  am  greatly  obliged  to  you  for  the  copy  of  your  Dictionary  which  you 
sent  to  me.  I  shall  keep  it  on  my  table  for  constant  reference,  and  I 
know  very  well  it  will  be  extremely  useful  to  me.  It  gives  me  great 
pleasure  to  see  the  general  and  hearty  recognition  of  the  value  of  your  labors 
in  this  important  department  of  literature.  The  influence  of  your  works 
is  rapidly  extending,  in  spite  of  opposition ;  and  I  am  very  sure  that  your 
fjreat  Dictionary  will  become  the  standard  everywhere. 

C  C.  FELTON. 

From  the  Rev.  William  A.  Stearns,  D.  L.,  President  of  Amherst  College. 
Amherst  College,  Mass.,  October  2,  1855. 

I  have  already  looked  into  it  [the  Dictionary]  sufficiently  to  see  that  it  is 
a  great  improvement  on  your  former  work,  which  to  say  of  any  work  of  the 
kind  is  the  greatest  praise.  I  am  sure  it  will  be  hailed  with  gladness  by  the 
best  scholars  in  the  country.  Henceforth,  for  years  to  come,  if  my  life 
should  be  spared,  the  copy  you  have  kindly  forwarded  to  me  will  have  a 
place  within  the  reach  of  my  study  table,  and  be  numbered  among  my  daily 
companions.  WILLIAM  A.  STEARNS. 


From  the  Eev.  Charles  G.  Finney,  President  of  Oberlin  College. 

Oberlin,  Ohio,  October  6,  1855. 
I  have  examined  your  Dictionary  in  respect  to  those  things  in  which  all 
others  are,  in  my  estimation,  deficient,  and  am  of  opinion  that,  for  the  English 
reader,  this  work  will  meet  the  wants  of  the  American  people  far  better  than 
any  thing  hitherto  published.  Within  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  many 
foreign  words  have  come  into  common  use,  especially  in  our  periodical  lit- 
erature, the  signification  of  which  few  English  readers  understand.  The  ad- 
vance of  science  in  all  its  departments  is  also  bringing  before  the  common 
reader  many  terms  and  phrases  not  generally  understood.  Our  youth  resort 
in  vain  to  the  English  or  American  Dictionaries  for  the  definition  of  those 
words  and  phrases.  Our  language  is  constantly  receiving  additions  from 
almost  every  language  of  Europe.  Besides  many  foreign  terms  and  phrases 
not  understood  in  this  country  because  of  their  origin,  many  obsolete  terms 
are  coming  again  into  use.  We  hardly  take  up  a  newspaper,  and  seldom  a 
quarterly,  without  finding  something  to  puzzle  the  English  reader,  no  ex- 
planation of  which  is  found  in  our  standard  Dictionaries.  This  want  has 
pressed  more  heavily  upon  the  reading  public  from  year  to  year.  I  have 
looked  over  the  pages  of  your  work,  and  have  been  pleased  to  find  nearly 
every  thing  of  the  kind  I  refer  to  that  could  be  desired.  It  is  a  timely  and 
highly  important  book.  It  is  needed  in  nearly  every  family,  and  will  be 
much  valued  by  the  reader.  That  it  may  have  the  circulation  it  deserves 
is  my  earnest  wish.  CHARLES  G.  FINNEY. 

From  the  Eev-  James  Walker,  D.  D.,  President  of  Harvard  College. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  October  5,  1855. 
I  have  looked  your  Pronouncing,  Explanatory,  and  Synonymous  Dic- 
tionary over  with  some  care,  and  think  the  additions  and  improvements  you 
have  introduced  into  it,  compared  with  any  of  your  former  Dictionaries,  are 
important,  especially  as  regards  synonymes.  It  is  beyond  question  the  most 
convenient  Dictionary  for  the  study-table,  and  for  common  use,  which  I  have 
yet  seen.  JAMES  WALKER. 

From  the  Hon.  Theodore  Frelinghnysen,  IL.  D.,  President  of  Eutger's  College. 

New  Brunswick,  N.  J.,  October  6,  1855. 
I  heartily  thank  you  for  your  excellent  "  Pronouncing,  Explanatory,  and 
Synonymous  Dictionary."  I  shall  prize  it  as  a  most  valuable  help  in  all  its 
departments  —  and  especially  in  the  last.  It  was  a  happy  thought  to  inter- 
weave the  synonymous  explanations ;  they  so  much  and  readily  aid  hard- 
working men,  who  have  so  little  time  for  research,  as  those  who  have  manv 
executive  duties  in  seminaries  and  colleges. 

THEO.  FRELINGHUYSEN. 

From  the  Eev.  Daniel  Kirkwood,  LL.  D.,  President  of  Delaware  College. 
Delaware  College,  October  3,  1855. 
I  have  just  received  the  copy  of  your  "  Dictionary  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage," which  you  had  the  goodness  to  forward  me.     I  regard  the  work  as 
one  of  great  merit,  admirably  adapted  to  the  uses  for  which  it  is  designed. 

DANIEL   KIRKWOOD. 


WORCESTER'S     NEW     DICTIONARY. 


From  the  Rev.  James  B.  Lodd,  President  of  Transylvania  University. 

Lexington,  Kt.,  October  6,  1855. 

It  would  exceed  the  limits  which  must  be  prescribed  to  this  communica- 
tion to  enter  particularly  into  the  merits  of  this  Dictionary,  and  I  must  be 
content  with  the  general  testimonial  that,  for  the  purposes  of  convenient 
consultation  by  readers  of  every  class,  and  more  especially  by  the  student  who 
would  gain  a  critical,  a  practical,  and  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  language  un denied,  there  is  no  Dictionary  equal  to  this. 

I  have  no  other  motive  for  commending  this  work  than  such  as  may  be 
supposed  to  spring  from  a  zeal  which  has  grown  out  of  long  service  in  the 
cause  of  education,  and  a  desire  to  see  some  honor  done  to  the  veteran  au- 
thor of  the  work,  who,  from  the  "  accursed  love  of  gold,"  has  been  sought 
to  be  made  the  victim  of  literary  injustice  and  fraud  in  this  country  and  in 
England.  JAMES  B.  DODD. 

From  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Hale,  D.  D.,  President  of  Hobart  Free  College, 

Geneva,  N.  Y. 

Geneva,  N.  Y.,  October  11,  1855. 
I  have  used  your  larger  Dictionary  many  years  with  great  satisfaction, 
and  your  smaller  one  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  recommending  for  the  use 
of  pupils.  I  am  much  pleased  with  the  edition  I  have  just  received.  The 
addition  of  the  synonymes  is  valuable,  and,  so  far  as  I  have  examined,  seems 
to  be  very  aptly  done,  and  the  whole  work  to  be  very  complete  for  its  pur- 
pose. BENJAMIN  HALE. 

From  the  Rev.  C.  Collins,  D.  D.,  President  of  Dickinson  College. 

Carlisle,  Pa.,  October  5,  1855. 
.  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  from  you  of  a  copy  of  your  "  Pro- 
nouncing, Explanatory,  and  Synonymous  Dictionary  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage." After  giving  it  a  somewhat  careful  examination,  I  take  pleasure  in 
saying  that  it  seems  to  me  to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  a  common  reference 
Dictionary  more  perfectly  than  any  one  now  before  the  public.  I  shall  rec- 
ommend to  the  college  bookseller  to  order  it  for  the  use  of  the  students. 

C.  COLLINS. 

From  the  Rev.  Wm.  A.  Smith,  D.  D.,  President  of  Randolph  Macon  College,  Va. 
Randolph  Macon  College,  Ya.,  October  18,  1855. 
I  have  the  pleasure  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  small  Dictionary. 
I  embraced  an  early  opportunity  to  examine  it,  and  am  happy  to  state  that 
your  additions  to  the  plan  usually  pursued  in  works  of  the  kind  are  decided 
improvements,  greatly  increasing  the  practical  value  of  a  Dictionary. 

WM.  A.  SMITH. 

From  S.  H.  Taylor,  LL,  D.,  Principal  of  Phillips'  Academy,  Andover,  Mass. 

Andover,  Mass.,  October  5,  1855. 
It  seems  to  me  to  combine  unusual  excellences,  and  as  a  manual  for  gen- 
eral use,  and  for  high  schools  and  colleges,  it  has  no  superior.  The  atten- 
tion given  to  the  principal  synonymes  of  the  language  is  a  new  and  valuable 
feature.  I  am  confident  that  the  Dictionary  will  meet  the  high  expecta- 
tions of  the  public  S.  H.  TAYLOR. 


Worcester's  Series  of  Dictionaries 

CONSIST    OF 

I.   The  Universal  and  Critical  Dictionary. 
II.   The  Explanatory  and  Synonymous  Dictionary. 

III.  The  Comprehensive  and  Pronouncing  Dictionary. 

IV.  The  Elementary  Dictionary. 
Y.   The  Primary  Dictionary. 

The  Publishers  of  these  popular  works  have  the  pleasure  to  announce  that  the 

ROYAL  QITAKTO  DICTIONARY, 

BEAUTIFULLY    ILLUSTRATED, 

is  in  preparation,  and  educated  men,  who  have  examined  the  proof-sheets,  unite 
in  declaring  that  it  will  be  the  fullest,  most  accurate  and  comprehensive  Diction- 
ary of  the  English  Language  ever  published. 

"WAIT,   AND    GET   THE   BEST." 

Worcester's  Dictionaries  are  used  in  the  Public  Schools  of  the  cities  of 
Boston,  New  York,  Baltimore,  Washington,  D.  C,  New  Orleans,  St.  Louis,  Chi- 
cago, Cleveland,  Buffalo,  Rochester,  Schenectady,  and  in  many  other  of  the  prin- 
cipal cities  and  towns  in  the  United  States.  The  unprincipled  attacks  made  by 
selfish  and  interested  parties  upon  the  character  of  Dr.  Worcester  and  his  Diction- 
aries have  only  attracted  the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  merits  of  his  works  ; 
and  the  sale  of  them  is  rapidly  increasing  in  every  part  of  the  country. 

Dr.  Worcester  has  done  more  to  establish  the  accuracy  of  pronunciation  than 
any  other  English  Lexicographer.  In  all  disputable  cases,  he  has  not  been  content 
with  expressing  his  own  preference,  but  by  the  citation  of  the  most  distinguished 
authorities,  he  has  left  the  student  the  means  of  determining  for  himself. 

Every  practical  teacher  knows  that  one  of  the  principal  uses  of  a  Dictionary  in 
a  school  room  is  to  determine  the  proper  pronunciation  of  words.  Most  of  the 
dictionaries  used  are  defective  in  this  particular.  Take,  for  instance,  the  following 
classes  of  words  in  Webster's  Dictionary:  bait,  bear;  date,  dare ;  fate,  fare; 
hate,  hare;  late,  lair ;  mate,  mare  ;  pate,  pare ;  rate,  rare;  wait,toare,  &c.  In  all 
these  words  Webster  improperly  gives  but  one  sound  of  a,  viz.,  the  long  sound  as 
heard  in.  fate.  The  absurdity  of  this,  as  well  as  the  impossibility  of  following  his 
directions,  may  readily  be  seen  by  pronouncing  the  foregoing  class  of  words  in 
rapid  succession.  Webster  makes  no  distinction  between  the  sounds  of  e  in  merit 
and  mercy;  merry  and  merchant ;  and  of  u  in  hurry  and  hurdle.  _  His  errors,  which 
extend  in  similar  classes  of  words  throughout  all  his  dictionaries,  arise  from  his 
imperfect  knowledge  of  the  power  of  the  letter  r.  A  moment's  reflection  will  show 
that  this  letter  has  a  peculiar  influence  on  both  the  long  and  the  short  sound  of 
the  vowel  which  precedes  it,  in  a  monosyllable,  or  in  an  accented  syllable,  unless 
the  succeeding  syllable  begins  with  a  vowel  sound;  as,  care,  fare,  pare,  mercy, 
merchant,  hurdle,  &c.  When  the  succeeding  syllable  begins  with  a  vowel  sound,^ 
the  sound  of  the  preceding  vowel  is  not  modified  ;  as,  merit,  merry,  hurry,  &c. 

Dr.  Worcester  has  wisely  made  a  distinction  in  marking  the  sounds  of  these 
classes  of  words ;  and  for  this  and  other  excellences,  his  works  are  commended  by 
the  best  scholars  in  the  country. 

Teachers  have  only  to  examine  his  Dictionaries,  and  they  will  be  sure  to 
recommend  the  use  of  them. 


HICKLING,  SWAN  &  BROWN, 

No.  131  WASHINGTON   STBEET,   BOSTON. 


mimmsssBSBm 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


l7„n52w«   \m 


||IU 


7  1971  0 


TO 


jN& 


y&kXS 


AY  1  ? 


LOAM    AHC 


JUL  3  1  1954 

-FEBll1969  03| 
RECEIVED 

tOAH  CEP1". 

LD21-95m-ll,'50(2877816)476 


LLC.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


M180436 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


